DM: Could this be the biggest find since the Dead Sea Scrolls? Seventy metal books found in cave in Jordan could change our view of Biblical history

[Spec138]

This isn't really true. I'm unaware of any serious, mainstream scholar of any stripe that argues that Jesus was not an historical person. John Dominic Crossan compares those that do to people that think the moon landing was faked.

And interestingly, if you read classical historians like Michael Grant or A N Sherwin-White, what you find is that they criticize Biblical scholars for frequently being too skeptical, applying very stringent standards for historical verification that would never be applied to other historical figures.

*Quotes of all of this available on request.

I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm curious, what evidence is there that Jesus existed? Of course you have the Gospels but as far as I know there aren't any contemporaries that wrote about him, all of the writings came after his life. You'd think the messiah would be big news, front page stuff, but apparently they were more common back then.

[techboy]

I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm curious, what evidence is there that Jesus existed? Of course you have the Gospels but as far as I know there aren't any contemporaries that wrote about him, all of the writings came after his life. You'd think the messiah would be big news, front page stuff, but apparently they were more common back then.

The first thing I'd note, in passing, is that it is totally true that there were many "Messiahs" in those days, probably because Second Temple Judaism saw the Jewish people feeling horribly oppressed by a mighty Roman Empire. And generally, what happened in those cases is that the "Messiah" died, and people shrugged their shoulders, crossed him off the "Messiah list", and moved on. Sometimes to a relative of the dead contender, other times to somebody else entirely, but what never seems to have happened (with one notable exception) is that people kept following the dead guy.

The fact that it's recorded that people kept following the dead guy is not only evidence that he existed, it's also an indication that something very unusual happened. Something that needs to be explained.

The second thing I'd note is that it's not accurate to suggest that nothing was written about Jesus by contemporaries. While it is true that the texts of the New Testament were not written down during Jesus' life (unsurprising, if you think about it... it was an oral culture and they were kind of busy to boot ), the latest dating accepted for John is in the 90s AD, which is about 60 years. Most of the texts are much closer than that, and some pieces of it can be dated as early as 18 months after the events in question. Paul, for instance, was a contemporary of Jesus, even if he wasn't an eyewitness.

In fact, in his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony Dr. Richard Bauckham makes a very powerful argument that the Gospels contain the eyewitness testimony of many people, who then acted as controls and checks on the traditions associated with them.

Finally, as to the evidence Jesus existed.

You could, I suppose, read the page JMS seems to have borrowed without attribution (the spelling's usually a giveaway )), but here's something I wrote a bit earlier on the topic:

The "Jesus Myth" Hypothesis: What do the experts have to say?

The simple fact is that pretty much anyone who has done any reading at all in the field of Jesus history knows that virtually no serious scholar in the field argues that Jesus was not an historical person. No one. Not the atheists, not the skeptics, not the Christians. No one.

It's not even an area of dispute, in a field where virtually everything is disputed by somebody.

For some of the reasons for this, try this log of a academic listserv discussing the historical Jesus. Consider, for instance, this answer by John Dominic Crossan (his Wiki page)

If I understand what Earl Doherty is arguing, Neil, it is that Jesus of Nazareth never existed as an historical person, or, at least that historians, like myself, presume that he did and act on that fatally flawed presumption.

I am not sure, as I said earlier, that one can persuade people that Jesus did exist as long as they are ready to explain the entire phenomenon of historical Jesus and earliest Christianity either as an evil trick or a holy parable. I had a friend in Ireland who did not believe that Americans had landed on the moon but that they had created the entire thing to bolster their cold-war image against the communists. I got nowhere with him. So I am not at all certain that I can prove that the historical Jesus existed against such an hypothesis and probably, to be honest, I am not even interested in trying.

It was, however, that hypothesis taken not as a settled conclusion, but as a simple question that was behind the first pages of BofC when I mentioned Josephus and Tacitus. I do not think that either of them checked out Jewish or Roman archival materials about Jesus. I think they were expressing the general public knowledge that "everyone" had about this weird group called Christians and their weird founder called Christ. The existence, not just of Christian materials, but of those other non-Christian sources, is enough to convince me that we are dealing with an historical individual. Furthermore, in all the many ways that opponents criticized earliest Christianity, nobody ever suggested that it was all made up. That in general, is quite enough for me.

There was one other point where I think Earl Doherty simply misstated what I did. In BofC, after the initial sections on materials and methods (1-235), I spent about equal time in Galilee (237-406) , or at least to the north, and in Jerusalem with pre-Pauline materials (407-573). I agree that if we had a totally different and irreconcilable vision/program between Paul and Q (just to take an example), it would require some very good explaining. Part of what I was doing, for example, in talking about the Common Meal Tradition was showing how even such utterly distinct eucharistic scenarios as Didache 9-10 and I Cor 11-12 have rather fascinating common elements behind and between them. It is a very different thing, in summary, for Paul to say that he is not interested in the historical Jesus (Jesus in the flesh) than to say that "no Galilee and no historical Jesus lie behind Paul."

Paragraph 3 is especially telling, I think.

One more passage by Crossan:

I am not certain, Neil, that I have much to add to my previous post. I do not claim "ideological immunity" against the possibility that the historical Jesus never existed. That such a person existed is an historical conclusion for me, and neither a dogmatic postulate nor a theological presupposition. My very general arguments are: (1) that existence is given in Christian, pagan, and Jewish sources; (2) it is never negated by even the most hostile critics of early Christianity (Jesus is a **** and a fool but never a myth or a fiction!); (3) there are no historical parallels that I know of from that time and period that help me understand such a total creation. There is, however, a fourth point that I touched on in BofC 403-406. It is crucially important for me that Jesus sent out companions and told them to do exactly what he was doing (not in his name, but as part of the Kingdom of God). The most basic continuity that I see between Jesus and those companions was, as I put it, not in mnemonics, but in mimetics. In other words, they were imitating his lifestyle and not just remembering his words. I find that emphasized in the Q Gospel’s indictment of those who talk, but do not do, and in the Didache’s emphasis on the ways (tropoi) of the Lord (not just words/logoi). When, therefore, I look at a phrase such as "blessed are the destitute," and am quite willing to argue that it comes from the historical Jesus, I am always at least as sure that it represents the accurate summary of an attitude as the accurate recall of a saying. For analogy: If Gandhi had developed a large movement after his death of people who are living in non-violent resistance to oppression, and one of them cited an aphorism of Gandhi, namely "if you do not stand on a small bug, why would you stand on a Big Bug," I would be more secure on the continuity in lifestyle than in memory and could work on that as basis.

That about sums it up, and again, this not seriously disputed by just about anybody. Michael Grant (here's his Wikipedia page) was an eminent classical historian, and in his Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels writes on page 199-200:

"...if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned...To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars'. In recent years 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus' -- or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary.

[Predicto]

I'm not saying you're wrong but I'm curious, what evidence is there that Jesus existed? Of course you have the Gospels but as far as I know there aren't any contemporaries that wrote about him, all of the writings came after his life. You'd think the messiah would be big news, front page stuff, but apparently they were more common back then.

Oh you had to open that door.

[Toe Jam]

This smells like a scam to me. They supposedly were found 5 years ago and this is the best source reporting on them? Kind of reminds me of the guy who claimed to have found Noah's Ark.

Speaking of that, there is old Skinsfan51 lately? We haven't had one of his threads in a long time?

Yahoo has this story as well.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110330/ts_yblog_thelookout/could-lead-codices-prove-the-major-discovery-of-christian-history

[SkinsHokieFan]

Duh Jesus existed

There is a reason he is mentioned here far more then the man who revealed this book

[sly]

The simple fact is that pretty much anyone who has done any reading at all in the field of Jesus history knows that virtually no serious scholar in the field argues that Jesus was not an historical person. No one. Not the atheists, not the skeptics, not the Christians. No one.

Just an observation... but given the fact that there were multiple messiahs at that time, coupled with the other known fact that records/stories were passed on orally rather than written historical documents, would you say that's it's entirely possible/probable that the historical Jesus could be just a combination of these messiahs or stories that were passed on throughout the region? Yes, maybe there was a supposed Jewish prophet that was murdered by Romans around that time period, but do historians really claim without argument that this same prophet was actually the one attributed to every single miracle put forth in the New Testament?

[techboy]

Just an observation... but given the fact that there were multiple messiahs at that time, coupled with the other known fact that records/stories were passed on orally rather than written historical documents, would you say that's it's entirely possible/probable that the historical Jesus could be just a combination of these messiahs or stories that were passed on throughout the region?

No.

Yes, maybe there was a supposed Jewish prophet that was murdered by Romans around that time period, but do historians really claim without argument that this same prophet was actually the one attributed to every single miracle put forth in the New Testament?

Pretty much.

[sly]

Pretty much.

I guess I'm sold then.

[The Sisko]

Ahh, I see Techboy is at it again...puncturing the Jesus myth, myth again.

What I do differ with him on is the interpretation of the meaning of the subsequent worship of this particular messiah compared to other messiahs. Techboy interprets it as proof of Jesus' divinity whereas I see it as more likely due to his charisma. For example, few Americans have ever heard of the obscure Presidents. However almost all of us recall Lincoln, Reagan, Kennedy, etc. probably as much for who they were than what they did...especially Reagan.

Yes, Jesus existed. However I simply don't think he was what his followers say he was.

[techboy]

I guess I'm sold then.

Excellent.

Seriously, I didn't see the need to expound further, because the answer to your hypothesis can be more or less found in the stuff I've already quoted. I guess, however, you'd like a little more on why Jesus is not just an amlagam of other older stories? I can do that. I wrote this bit earlier as well. It starts off with Horus and Mithras, but it becomes more general as it goes.

The "Jesus Myth" Hypothesis: What do the experts have to say about mythological development of Jesus in general?

Jesus is a popular target for "parallelism" on Mr. Internet. The ones I hear most commonly are Mithras and Horus, so let's look at those. Then we'll cover Osiris and others, and then parallelism in general.

Just a preface here... most of this stuff floating around the internet is based on work by Francis Cumont (or nobody at all), and has been since discarded by more modern research, which has determined that most of the parallels are bogus, and where they do exist, generally they would have to be the other way around (Mithraism borrowing from Christianity) due to the dating. The following quotes are from an interview Lee Strobel does with Dr. Edwin Yamuachi, a foremost expert in this field, who among his extensive qualifications, was a participant at the Second Mythraic Mysteries Congress in Tehran in 1975. Quotes are from Strobel's The Case for the Real Jesus. All quote Dr. Yamauchi directly.

Here's what happened at the Congress:

The Congress produced two volumes of papers. A scholar named Richard Gordon from England and others concluded that Cumont's theory was not supported by the evidence and, in fact, Cumont's interpretations have now been analyzed and rejected on all major points. Contrary to what Cumont believed. even though Mithras was a Persian god who was attested to as early as the fourteenth century B.C., we have almost no evidence of Mithraism in the sense of a mystery religion in the West until very late-too late to have influenced the beginnings of Christianity. (page 168)

More quotes from Dr. Yamauchi on the problems with the idea that Mithraism influenced Christianity:

The first public recognition of Mithras in Rome was the state visit of Tiridates, the king of Armenia, in AD 66.. It's said that he addressed Nero by saying, 'And I have come to thee, my god, to worship thee as I do Mithras.' There is also a reference earlier to some pirates in Cilicia who were worshipers of Mithras, but, this is NOT the same as Mithraism as a mystery religion. (page 169)

Mithraism as a mystery religion cannot be attested before anout AD 90, which is about the time we seee a Mithraic motif in a poem by Statius. No mithraea [or Mithraic temples] have been found at Pompeii, which was destroyed by the eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79. The earliest Mithraic inscription in the West is a statue of a prefect under the emperor Trajan in AD 101. It's now in the British Museum. (page 169)

The earliest mithraea are dated to the early second century. There are a handful of inscriptions that date to the early second century, but the vast majority of texts are dated to AD 140. Most of what we have as evidence of Mithraism comes in the second, third, and fourth centuries AD. That's basically what's wrong with the theories about Mithraism influencing the beginnings of Christianity (page 169)

Gordon dates the estanblishment of the Mithraic mysteries to the reign of Hadrian, which was AD 117-138, or Antoninus Pius, which would be from 138 to 161. (page 169)

Specifically, Gordon said, 'It is therefore reasonable to argue that Western Mithraism did not exist until the mid-second century, at least in a developed sense (page 169)

Editor's note: Dr. Gordon is a senior fellow at the University of East Anglia.

Further, most of the parallels aren't even true! For example, Mithras was not born of a virgin. He sprang out of solid rock! Dr. Yamauchi again:

He [Mithras] was born out of a rock. Yes, the rock birth is commonly depicted in Mithraic beliefs. Mithras emerges fully grown and naked except for a Phrygian cap, and he's holding a dagger and torch. In some variations, flames shoot out from the rock, or he's holding a globe in his hands. (page 171)

Also, Mithras wasn't ressurected (more on the uniqueness of this story later, by the way, and not just about Mithras). Actually, there's no record of Mithras dying at all!

We don't know anything about the death of Mithras. We have a lot of monuments, but we have almost no textual evidence, because this was a secret religion. But I know of no supposed references to a death and resurrection. Indeed, Richard Gordon declared in his book "Image and Value in the Greco-Roman World" that there is "no death of Mithras"-and thus, there cannot be a resurrection. (page 172)

The December 25 parallel is often claimed, but the Christian church didn't adopt that date until the 4th century, so that's not a parallel with the Bible either.

I'll stop the detail here, because I have a lot to still cover, but I think that's sufficient to demonstrate that there is absolutely no evidence that Christianity borrowed from Mithraism, and if anything, Mithraism may well have borrowed from Christianity!

Now, though, I'd like to bump up a level, and talk about how and why scholars have rejected the notion that there is any pagan mythological "copycat" influence on the Christian story (hopefully, this will also put to rest whatever "parallels" I skipped).

The following is from T.N.D. Mettinger's book, The Riddle of Ressurection: "Dying and Rising Gods" in the Ancient Near East.

First, Mettinger's assessment of the current state of scholarship, from Chapter 1.2.1: Where Do We Stand? The Task of the Present Work (This quote is from page 40):

As a result of the many decades of research since de Vaux (1933), "it has become commonplace to assume that the category of Mediterranean 'dying and rising' gods has been exploded... (I)t is now held that the majority of the gods so denoted appear to have died but not returned; there is death but no rebirth or ressurection." These words of J.Z. Smith aptly summarise the present state of research. (56)

Mettinger spends a lot of time in this chapter discussing this: the current consensus of scholars is that there are no "dying and rising" gods that predate Christ, and that, in fact, many of the references came after Christ, and are in fact more likely either cases of pagans borrowing from Christians, and not the other way around, or, as in the case of the Church moving Jesus' birthday to Dec. 25, an attempt by early Christians to attract followers of various pagan beliefs.

Now, I want to be totally fair here: although Mettinger shows the current state of scholarship, he then goes on to say that he is one of the few that disagree, and the book is an attempt to make his case that there are in fact a few "dying and rising" gods that pre-date Christianity. He makes a fairly good argument, too, for the gods Melqart, Adonis, Osiris, and Dumuzi. Most scholars disagree with him, but it's a fair argument. Note please, that nowhere in this list is Mithras, by the way.

Before the "Christ mythers" declare victory, though, along with the fact that he is in the extreme minority on this issue, there is also this quote from page 221, in the Epilogue (the bold emphasis is mine, the italics are his):

(1)The figures we have studied are deities. In the case of Jesus, we are confronted with a human (for whom divinity was claimed by himself and by his followers). For the disciples and for Paul, the resurrection of Jesus was a one-time, historical event that took place at one specific point in the earth's topography. The empty tomb was seen as a historical datum. (4)

(2) The dying and rising gods were closely related to the seasonal cycle. Their death and return were seen as reflected in the changes of plant life. The death and ressurection of Jesus is a one-time event, not repeated, and unrelated to seasonal changes.

(3) The death of Jesus is presented in the sources as vicarious suffering, as an act of atonement for sins. The myth of Dumuzi has an arrangement with bilocation and substitution, but there is no evidence for the death of the dying and rising gods as vicarious suffering for sins.

There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death and resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the myths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world. While studied with profit against the background of Jewish resurrection belief, the faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus retains its unique character in the history of religions. The riddle remains.

So, to sum up:

1) The vast majority of scholars reject the idea of pre-Christian "dying and rising gods" at all.

2) Mettinger, who while in the minority, makes a pretty good case that there are a few, also firmly concludes that there is no evidence that the Jewish Jesus was a myth based on other stories. Jesus is unique.

The point about Jesus' essential Judaism is key to the current scholarly rejection of the myth hypothesis. As Dr. William Lane Craig writes in Reply to Evan Fales: On the Empty Tomb of Jesus:

Now from D. F. Strauss through Rudolf Bultmann the role of myth in the shaping of the gospels was a question of lively debate in New Testament scholarship. But with the advent of the so–called "Third Quest" of the historical Jesus and what one author has called "the Jewish reclamation of Jesus,"{1} that is, the rediscovery of the Jewishness of Jesus, scholars have come to appreciate that the proper context for understanding Jesus and the gospels is first–century Palestinian Judaism, not pagan mythology. A most informative article on the demise of myth as a useful interpretive category for the gospels is Craig Evans's "Life–of–Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology," in which he chronicles and accounts for the "major shift" away from mythology as a relevant factor in gospel interpretation.{2}

Given that Jesus and the gospels find their natural home in first century, Palestinian Judaism, recourse to pagan mythology to explain them has become otiose. Hence, we find James Dunn, called upon to write the article on "Myth" for the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, questioning even the need for such an entry in the dictionary: "Myth is a term of at best doubtful relevance to the study of Jesus and the Gospels…The fact that 'myth' even appears here as a subject related to the study of Jesus and the Gospels can be attributed almost entirely to the use of the term by two NT scholars"–Strauss and Bultmann.{3} In lamenting that most commentators have no "knowledge of–or at least, they certainly ignore–the tools that modern anthropology has provided for the analysis of myths and myth construction," Fales tacitly recognizes that his views in gospel interpretation would be rejected by the vast majority of NT critics (and not, therefore, simply by "fundamentalists!"). What he does not appreciate is that the construal of the gospels in terms of myth has been tried and found wanting by NT scholarship.

(Editor's note: I had to look it up. "Otiose" means useless. )

Further, there just isn't enough time between the events and the writings for the kind of legendary development necessary for a myth-based story.

From Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by Dr. William Lane Craig:

First, the resurrection appearances. Undoubtedly the major impetus for the reassessment of the appearance tradition was the demonstration by Joachim Jeremias that in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-5 Paul is quoting an old Christian formula which he received and in turn passed on to his converts According to Galatians 1:18 Paul was in Jerusalem three years after his conversion on a fact-finding mission, during which he conferred with Peter and James over a two week period, and he probably received the formula at this time, if not before. Since Paul was converted in AD 33, this means that the list of witnesses goes back to within the first five years after Jesus' death. Thus, it is idle to dismiss these appearances as legendary. We can try to explain them away as hallucinations if we wish, but we cannot deny they occurred. Paul's information makes it certain that on separate occasions various individuals and groups saw Jesus alive from the dead. According to Norman Perrin, the late NT critic of the University of Chicago: "The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based." This conclusion is virtually indisputable.

At the same time that biblical scholarship has come to a new appreciation of the historical credibility of Paul's information, however, it must be admitted that skepticism concerning the appearance traditions in the gospels persists. This lingering skepticism seems to me to be entirely unjustified. It is based on a presuppositional antipathy toward the physicalism of the gospel appearance stories. But the traditions underlying those appearance stories may well be as reliable as Paul's. For in order for these stories to be in the main legendary, a very considerable length of time must be available for the evolution and development of the traditions until the historical elements have been supplanted by unhistorical. This factor is typically neglected in New Testament scholarship, as A. N. Sherwin-White points out in Roman Law and Roman Society tn the New Testament. Professor Sherwin-White is not a theologian; he is an eminent historian of Roman and Greek times, roughly contemporaneous with the NT. According to Professor Sherwin-White, the sources for Roman history are usually biased and removed at least one or two generations or even centuries from the events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence what really happened. He chastises NT critics for not realizing what invaluable sources they have in the gospels. The writings of Herodotus furnish a test case for the rate of legendary accumulation, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states for these to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be 'unbelievable'; more generations are needed. All NT scholars agree that the gospels were written down and circulated within the first generation, during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. Indeed, a significant new movement of biblical scholarship argues persuasively that some of the gospels were written by the AD 50's. This places them as early as Paul's letter to the Corinthians and, given their equal reliance upon prior tradition, they ought therefore to be accorded the same weight of historical credibility accorded Paul. It is instructive to note in this connection that no apocryphal gospel appeared during the first century. These did not arise until after the generation of eyewitnesses had died off. These are better candidates for the office of 'legendary fiction' than the canonical gospels. There simply was insufficient time for significant accrual of legend by the time of the gospels' composition. Thus, I find current criticism's skepticism with regard to the appearance traditions in the gospels to be unwarranted. The new appreciation of the historical value of Paul's information needs to be accompanied by a reassessment of the gospel traditions as well.

Ultimately, though, I think the biggest stumbling block to the idea that the stories of Jesus were "borrowed" from anywhere is that it is a historical fact that the disciples and early Christians really believed that they had encountered the risen Jesus.

Consider this passage from Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying, by Dr. Gary Habermas. Keep in mind that this is a survey of critical scholars.

I like to quote this section:

Bart Ehrman explains that, “Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.” This early belief in the resurrection is the historical origination of Christianity.[91]

As we have mentioned throughout, there are certainly disagreements about the nature of the experiences. But it is still crucial that the nearly unanimous consent[92] of critical scholars is that, in some sense, the early followers of Jesus thought that they had seen the risen Jesus.

This conclusion does not rest on the critical consensus itself, but on the reasons for the consensus, such as those pointed out above. A variety of paths converge here, including Paul's eyewitness comments regarding his own experience (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8), the pre-Pauline appearance report in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, probably dating from the 30s, Paul's second Jerusalem meeting with the major apostles to ascertain the nature of the Gospel (Gal. 2:1-10), and Paul's knowledge of the other apostles' teachings about Jesus' appearances (1 Cor. 15:9-15, especially 15:11). Further, the early Acts confessions, the conversion of James, the brother of Jesus, the transformed lives that centered on the resurrection, the later Gospel accounts, and, most scholars would agree, the empty tomb. This case is built entirely on critically-ascertained texts, and confirmed by many critical principles such as eyewitness testimony, early reports, multiple attestation, discontinuity, embarrassment, enemy declarations, and coherence.[93]

Please keep in mind that Dr. Ehrman is not a Christian. He is a skeptic.

Not only is it an historical certainty (insofar that we can be certain of anything, historically) that Jesus existed, it is also an historical fact that the earliest Christians really believed that they had encountered the risen Jesus, which makes the myth theory ridiculous on its face.

It doesn't matter how many apparent parallels there are, if the early Christians were reporting what they thought actualy happened.

There was a thread a while back talking about all the "eerie similarities" between Kennedy and Lincoln. Did anyone come away with the conclusion that Kennedy must have been a myth, based on the stories of Lincoln?

No? That's why the community of scholars has roundly rejected parallelism. No "wholesale cribbing" here.

[Predicto]

Oh you had to open that door.

Opening it a second time? People, cmon....

:poke: techboy

[Spec138]

The first thing I'd note, in passing, is that it is totally true that there were many "Messiahs" in those days, probably because Second Temple Judaism saw the Jewish people feeling horribly oppressed by a mighty Roman Empire. And generally, what happened in those cases is that the "Messiah" died, and people shrugged their shoulders, crossed him off the "Messiah list", and moved on.

First of all, I appreciate all the info you provided. I read some small bits of Crossan and was impressed. I believe you're right Jesus did exist, but I still think it lacks some to concretely say, "no, he existed in the exact form of the gospels" as you said in response to sly, though I could be wrong

The fact that it's recorded that people kept following the dead guy is not only evidence that he existed, it's also an indication that something very unusual happened. Something that needs to be explained.

I don't agree. Men have created gods for many years so I don't find it hard to believe a dedicated group of followers would continue to spread his gospel, especially if he predicted his own death. If your quote is referring to the resurrection, then I must point out that the man you sourced, John Dominic Crossan, seems to have a contradicting view of the resurrection.

Crossan maintains the Gospels were never intended to be taken literally by their authors. He argues that the meaning of the story is the real issue, not whether a particular story about Jesus is history or parable. He proposes that it is historically probable that, like all but one known victim of crucifixion, Jesus' body was scavenged by animals rather than being placed in a tomb.[4] Crossan believes in "resurrection" by faith but holds that bodily resuscitation was never contemplated by early Christians. He believes that the rapture is based on a misreading of I Thessalonians.

[thebluefood]

Wow. Here's hoping these are authentic for those of us that do believe. The more historical recording the better in hopefully educating, if that's the right word without wishing to sound above anyone; the doubters that still remain out there.

Hail.

That's exactly what I'm thinking. While faith will always be an important part of Christianity; having artifacts like this makes the life of a Christian apologist much easier.

[Kosher Ham]

Faith is the biggest part of ANY religion.

The rest is very similar.

And I don't think anyone really believes that a man named Jesus (oops) never existed.

[JMS]

I guess I'm sold then.

There is no irrefutable historical evidence of jesus's miracles, nor of Jesus's life. Historians of that era basically record and recount what folks believed at the time of their writings. Early Romans the richest source of historical knowledge did not believe Jesus was devine in the first century AD. They were still slaughtering Christians in the arenas at that time. However we do know they were slaughtering Christians in the arena, and we do have independent confirmation of what christians in that early time believed. Rome would not legalize Christianity until 300 AD. The historical debate deals with what can be proven and failing that what is likely. The evidence for a historical Jesus seems rather convincing, but that is far far away from saying their is no debate. Whether the historical Jesus performed all the miracles in the bible isn't really a historical question so much as it is a question of faith. There is no conclusive historical evidence of it removed from faith and of coarse since you can't prove a negative their is no evidence against it. What we do know is within decades of the crusifiction event, relatively large and committed groups of people believed these things. We also know people pf historical significance mentioned in the bible, like Pilate or Herod the Great; existed beyond doubt which lends historic credibility to the articles of faith..

[boobiemiles]

I am definitely intrigued by this. If proven to be real, this is one step closer to proving Jesus was in fact real.

Jesus is real. The real question is "was he god"? And I believe he was not. Tin books or whatever. No matter how old or new a book is, all these manuscripts are written by people, and taken by people as devine doctrine.

---------- Post added March-31st-2011 at 12:25 PM ----------

There is no irrefutable historical evidence of jesus's miracles, nor of Jesus's life. Historians of that era basically record and recount what folks believed at the time of their writings. Early Romans the richest source of historical knowledge did not believe Jesus was devine in the first century AD. They were still slaughtering Christians in the arenas at that time. However we do know they were slaughtering Christians in the arena, and we do have independent confirmation of what christians in that early time believed. Rome would not legalize Christianity until 300 AD. The historical debate deals with what can be proven and failing that what is likely. The evidence for a historical Jesus seems rather convincing, but that is far far away from saying their is no debate. Whether the historical Jesus performed all the miracles in the bible isn't really a historical question so much as it is a question of faith. There is no conclusive historical evidence of it removed from faith and of coarse since you can't prove a negative their is no evidence against it. What we do know is within decades of the crusifiction event, relatively large and committed groups of people believed these things. We also know people pf historical significance mentioned in the bible, like Pilate or Herod the Great; existed beyond doubt which lends historic credibility to the articles of faith..

So because some events in the bible are fact, that means the whole bible is historically accurate? Personally I think Jesus would not appreciate Christianity. If he was a gnostic, which I believe he was, then our journey to salvation is through ones self, not through another.

---------- Post added March-31st-2011 at 12:29 PM ----------

There is no irrefutable historical evidence of jesus's miracles, nor of Jesus's life. Historians of that era basically record and recount what folks believed at the time of their writings. Early Romans the richest source of historical knowledge did not believe Jesus was devine in the first century AD. They were still slaughtering Christians in the arenas at that time. However we do know they were slaughtering Christians in the arena, and we do have independent confirmation of what christians in that early time believed. Rome would not legalize Christianity until 300 AD. The historical debate deals with what can be proven and failing that what is likely. The evidence for a historical Jesus seems rather convincing, but that is far far away from saying their is no debate. Whether the historical Jesus performed all the miracles in the bible isn't really a historical question so much as it is a question of faith. There is no conclusive historical evidence of it removed from faith and of coarse since you can't prove a negative their is no evidence against it. What we do know is within decades of the crusifiction event, relatively large and committed groups of people believed these things. We also know people pf historical significance mentioned in the bible, like Pilate or Herod the Great; existed beyond doubt which lends historic credibility to the articles of faith..

So because some events in the bible are fact, that means the whole bible is historically accurate? Personally I think Jesus would not appreciate Christianity. If he was a gnostic, which I believe he was, then our journey to salvation is through ones self, not through another.

[techboy]

I believe you're right Jesus did exist, but I still think it lacks some to concretely say, "no, he existed in the exact form of the gospels" as you said in response to sly, though I could be wrong

Well, you probably are , but I guess I should be clear here.

There is absolutely a scholarly consensus that Jesus of Nazareth existed as an historical person. See the Michael Grant quote in post 27. His credentials as an historian, by the way, are a little stronger than those of JMS.

There is certainly disagreement beyond that, though, as to whether or not any of the details of the story are accurate, for a variety of reasons, though there is broad agreement on many details that some might find surprising. These include Jesus having a ministry of miracle working (though this doesn't mean people believe the miracles were necessarily real), being crucified, being buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimetha (more on that in a bit), that his followers had experiences they took to be him risen from the dead, and even the empty tomb. I'm trying to be brief here (did you see the one word answers), but you know from previous discussions here that I can bury you with citations of this if needed.

When Sly asked me if I thought it was possible/probable that Jesus existed, but that his story just got garbled up with other "Messiahs" of the time period, I said no, not because I was arguing it as a scholarly consensus at the level of the fact that Jesus existed (though it might well be), but because that's where I think the evidence lies, for the reasons I have elucidated in my previous posts.

I don't agree. Men have created gods for many years so I don't find it hard to believe a dedicated group of followers would continue to spread his Gospel, especially if he predicted his own death.

You're ignoring the historical context (I'm going to be quick here, because it wasn't really my intention to get bogged down in a huge debate, and I don't really have the time now anyway, but I can provide citations for all of this upon request):

1. A whole big list of failed Messiahs was cited in this thread. What you will find if you research it further, as I noted, is that in each case, when the "Messiah" died, his followers either disbanded completely, or moved on to someone else, possibly a relative. In Second Temple Judaism, the Messiah was expected to be a military conqueror that would throw off the Jews' oppressors and usher in an immediate Earthly kingdom. If he died, that was proof that he wasn't actually the Messiah.

This is doubly true of Jesus, who died in a method that Judaism said meant the person was cursed by God.

The reaction of Jesus' followers was extraordinary, and it's not enough to suggest that he had a lot of charisma (which I'm sure he did, but then so did all the other "Messiahs", probably), or that they really liked him (again, the same is probably true of all the other failures).

2. Second Temple Judaism had no conception of Resurrection as an event within history, so if they were going to carry on the faith, it's much more likely that they'd follow a concept they did have a frame of reference for, such as seeing a vision of Jesus in Abraham's bosom. This radical alteration of firmly held beliefs (remember, they were all Jews, and Jews of the day were stubborn about the faith, thus all the problems with the Romans) again requires an explanation.

3. As noted by Ehrman, Jesus' followers really believed that they had encounters with the risen Jesus, so whether or not men have "created gods" over the years, they weren't making it up.

That's a very short version. I can expand upon it if I must.

If your quote is referring to the resurrection, then I must point out that the man you sourced, John Dominic Crossan, seems to have a contradicting view of the resurrection.

Yes, I am well aware of Crossan's views on the Resurrection. In point of fact, that's specifically the reason I quoted him (sometimes I even mention his "wild dogs" theory, to dispel the idea that he is speaking from theological bias) on the historical Jesus, because he is so radically skeptical. If a guy like Crossan considers denying the existence of an historical Jesus to be equivalent to denying the moon landing, then you can be pretty sure the idea is ridiculous.

What I would point out about Crossan in passing, though, is that while he is absolutely a top notch and highly respected expert, he's also out there more or less by himself on the "wild dogs" theory (and in several other areas). The vast majority of scholars accept that Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimethea. Craig Evans, for instance, absolutely demolishes the wild dogs theory in his Jewish Burial Traditions and the Resurrection of Jesus.

Once again, elaboration and citation available upon request, but please, won't everyone just think of Predicto?

And I don't think anyone really believes that a man named Jesus (oops) never existed.

You'd be surprised, though it's largely an internet phenomenon (today... it was more popular in scholarly circles in the 19th century), and one common thread is that the proponents of the idea tend to be of the aggressive evangelical atheist sort, so I suspect a lot of it is theologically motivated, as it were.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Wow article promises so much and delivers so very little. I am reminded of the cup that was found a couple years ago that was supposed to change the face of Christianity, these are really neat finds but nothing more than that and they aren't going to change Christianity.

[Burgold]

I think what gets me sometimes is the degree of confidence each side always asserts. I mean heck there are people today who can't agree on the historical truth of things that happened within our lifetimes.

[JMS]

So because some events in the bible are fact, that means the whole bible is historically accurate? Personally I think Jesus would not appreciate Christianity. If he was a gnostic, which I believe he was, then our journey to salvation is through ones self, not through another

Jesus was not a Gnostic. Gnosticism sprang up in the second century AD or later. The fact that Gnostic's self identify with Jesus is no more deterministic than Christians who are rooted in the time of Jesus self Identifying with Jesus. Jesus was not a Christian either. Jesus was a Jew, A Rabi, or religious teacher within the Jewish faith to be precise. So were his mother, father, and his brother(s) and all the people Jesus preached to in his lifetime. We have no evidence in the bible that he ever traveled outside of the jewish geographic community.

And no, because some events in the bible are fact does not mean the whole bible is historically accurate. The bible is made up of many genre's of writings, some is preported to be history, some is predictions about the future, some is poetry, and some is fiction; presented as such. Parables designed to illustrate a point rather than be taken as verbatim historical events. The fact that some of the bible can be supported factually by independent source just supports those specific points... But really it's not at all a black and white which historians are interested in... Proved or not proved. It's more of a stratus with shades/layers of support for different aspects of what's in the bible. From things we know, things we suspect, things we have no evidence for until hundreds of years, sometimes even a 1000 years after the event.

But that's really not that uncommon in history. We have no comprehensive journal of Caesar's conquest of Gaul until 1000 years after the fact and their is not much scholarly dispute that Cesar did in fact conquer Gaul. The Iliad by homer was likely written 400 years after the events of the war but still convey significant information about events which historians believe today actually occurred.

Typically in history more is good, less is bad. The bible and the documents around the time and shortly after Jesus, has quite a bit of detail. Detail that can be used to both prove and disprove what comes to be accepted knowledge.

There are branches of theology which study religion strictly on scientific and secular grounds. If that is what you are interested in I would refer you to any book written by Ninian Smart a pioneer in the field of secular religious studies.

If that is what you want to discuss I would avoid folks who identify with the christian apologist branch of theology because their doctrine isn't really about honest debate so much as it is seeking evidence from any source which support their articles of faith.

[rebornempowered]

Jesus was not a Gnostic. Gnosticism sprang up in the second century AD or latter..

While I agree with you that Jesus was not a Gnostic, Gnosticism was around prior to Jesus. It has and, in my opinion, will always be a parasite on other religions. There were Gnostic strains in ancient religions. The Christian strain wasn't prevalent until the 2nd century.

[JMS]

While I agree with you that Jesus was not a Gnostic, Gnosticism was around prior to Jesus. It has and, in my opinion, will always be a parasite on other religions. There were Gnostic strains in ancient religions. The Christian strain wasn't prevalent until the 2nd century.

Then perhaps our disagreement is pedantic in what is and isn't considered gnostic. I say pedantic because perhaps we would not disagree about folks prior to Jesus who blended the beliefs of different faiths... Perhaps we would just disagree whether these people were unrelated and whether their beliefs systems most accurately should be lumpted together into a single Gnostic label.

Gnostism in the second century AD was a wide spread herietical belief inside the catholic church. Those folks to me would seem unassociated with helenistic jews, in 200 bc. For example. But you are correct some folks do associate the seemingly diverse groups under one label...

[oisn1]

You're ignoring the historical context (I'm going to be quick here, because it wasn't really my intention to get bogged down in a huge debate, and I don't really have the time now anyway, but I can provide citations for all of this upon request):

1. A whole big list of failed Messiahs was cited in this thread. What you will find if you research it further, as I noted, is that in each case, when the "Messiah" died, his followers either disbanded completely, or moved on to someone else, possibly a relative. In Second Temple Judaism, the Messiah was expected to be a military conqueror that would throw off the Jews' oppressors and usher in an immediate Earthly kingdom. If he died, that was proof that he wasn't actually the Messiah.

This is doubly true of Jesus, who died in a method that Judaism said meant the person was cursed by God.

The reaction of Jesus' followers was extraordinary, and it's not enough to suggest that he had a lot of charisma (which I'm sure he did, but then so did all the other "Messiahs", probably), or that they really liked him (again, the same is probably true of all the other failures).

2. Second Temple Judaism had no conception of Resurrection as an event within history, so if they were going to carry on the faith, it's much more likely that they'd follow a concept they did have a frame of reference for, such as seeing a vision of Jesus in Abraham's bosom. This radical alteration of firmly held beliefs (remember, they were all Jews, and Jews of the day were stubborn about the faith, thus all the problems with the Romans) again requires an explanation.

3. As noted by Ehrman, Jesus' followers really believed that they had encounters with the risen Jesus, so whether or not men have "created gods" over the years, they weren't making it up.

That's a very short version. I can expand upon it if I must.

This is a slippery slope you're heading down. In fact, it is a circular argument; Only a true God would have followers after some period of time and since Jesus still had followers, he must be a true God. While there are many failed messiahs, consider the growth of Islam, Mormonism, and hell, even Scientology. Muhammad claimed to be the final prophet and his religion is growing faster than Christianity. Joseph Smith is a prophet of Christ and I'm sure most Christians are weary of giving him truly divine status. After L.R. Hubbard died, Scientology has grown even with its dubious claims and practices. Honestly, most all religions that are around today revolve around the divinity of the first follower. Buddhism is followed because the first Buddha was able to reach nirvana and taught followers about it afterward.

The existence of a religious sect doesn't make it divine, anymore than Islam, Judiasm, Mormonism, Scientology, Hinduism, Buddhism, Paganism, or any other modern religion being divine. While Christianity is special in that it was able to survive and grow into a large religion, it has company (before and after its formation). As others have said earlier, this doesn't mean Christianity isn't divine, it's just a very bad argument to make.

[techboy]

Only a true God would have followers after some period of time and since Jesus still had followers, he must be a true God.

You're right, that's a bad argument.

Of course, that wasn't what I was arguing, so I don't feel too bad about it.

[Spec138]

Well, you probably are

Happens more often than you'd expect

(I'm going to be quick here, because it wasn't really my intention to get bogged down in a huge debate, and I don't really have the time now anyway, but I can provide citations for all of this upon request)

I shudder at your idea of a huge debate, and would never want to be on the business end of that

but I guess I should be clear here.

There is absolutely a scholarly consensus that Jesus of Nazareth existed as an historical person. See the Michael Grant quote in post 27. His credentials as an historian, by the way, are a little stronger than those of JMS.

There is certainly disagreement beyond that, though, as to whether or not any of the details of the story are accurate, for a variety of reasons, though there is broad agreement on many details that some might find surprising. These include Jesus having a ministry of miracle working (though this doesn't mean people believe the miracles were necessarily real), being crucified, being buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimetha (more on that in a bit), that his followers had experiences they took to be him risen from the dead, and even the empty tomb. I'm trying to be brief here (did you see the one word answers), but you know from previous discussions here that I can bury you with citations of this if needed.

When Sly asked me if I thought it was possible/probable that Jesus existed, but that his story just got garbled up with other "Messiahs" of the time period, I said no, not because I was arguing it as a scholarly consensus at the level of the fact that Jesus existed (though it might well be), but because that's where I think the evidence lies, for the reasons I have elucidated in my previous posts.

As I said early I think you're right, and I never really thought Jesus didn't exist, I just didn't know what evidence there was for his existence. The only problem I have reading your posts is that I can't figure out where you stand on the issue of Jesus' divinity.

Please don't expand further, I don't have the time to read the post and all the sources